That wouldn't be so bad if they were passing at least some of those savings on to consumers, but it sure doesn't look like it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Announces New Mac Mini Starting at $499
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That wouldn't be so bad if they were passing at least some of those savings on to consumers, but it sure doesn't look like it.
If they did that, they couldn't maintain their 39% (and rising) profit margin. Almost 40% profit...
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Apple.
With apologies to George Orwell.....
With apologies to George Orwell.....
That's not really a product. Most people are not going to build their own computer.
Look at the 2012 Mac mini. Apple went backwards on some features on the 2014 model. The CPU problem does seem to come from Intel however, so a lot of us are still hoping for a redesigned Mac mini in 2015 once Intel ships Broadwell and then Skylake.
I see where Apple is going with this. Therefore they should have a Mac Mini and a Mac Mini Plus with specs that blow your brains out in the specified form factor.
Colo Gods.
Rocketman
Colo Gods.
Rocketman
Perhaps the questions to ask here are:
1. what is it that you really want or need?
2. how much are you willing to pay for it? and
3. what are you willing to sacrifice and what alternatives are there?
I still remember paying over $5000 in 1982 for an IBM PC XT with a 10 MB hard drive 4.77mhz 3086 processor (3087 math coprocessor was extra) and the fabulous (?) EGA display. Hard drives lasted about a year and were $500 to replace. dBaseIV was $500 and I think Word Perfect was $200 and Lotus 1-2-3 was at least a couple hundred dollars. my IBM P-80 service contract was $500 a year (a replacement motherboard was $2500).
My first Mac Mini (mid-2011 Server) cost less than I paid annually for PC-XT 10MB hard drives and and EGA monitor.
I ordered that Mac Mini server with the i7 processor, dual 500GB hard drives but I used an old HDMI monitor and an old Microsoft wireless keyboard and mouse. The only accessories I needed were the mouse and touchpad.
One nice thing about the Mac Minis is that AppleCare lasts for three years so even my old 2011 mini is still under AppleCare.
When the late 2012 Mac Minis came out I bought a couple of them (i7 processors and a 1TB hard drive. Then the day the late 2014 Mac Mini was announced I ordered of them also.
I think my late 2011 mini with that i7 processor is still faster than the current base model mini.
We are all different and what is important or acceptable to me may be totally different from how someone else sees it but in my opinion the minis give me the most bang for my Apple buck.
1. what is it that you really want or need?
2. how much are you willing to pay for it? and
3. what are you willing to sacrifice and what alternatives are there?
I still remember paying over $5000 in 1982 for an IBM PC XT with a 10 MB hard drive 4.77mhz 3086 processor (3087 math coprocessor was extra) and the fabulous (?) EGA display. Hard drives lasted about a year and were $500 to replace. dBaseIV was $500 and I think Word Perfect was $200 and Lotus 1-2-3 was at least a couple hundred dollars. my IBM P-80 service contract was $500 a year (a replacement motherboard was $2500).
My first Mac Mini (mid-2011 Server) cost less than I paid annually for PC-XT 10MB hard drives and and EGA monitor.
I ordered that Mac Mini server with the i7 processor, dual 500GB hard drives but I used an old HDMI monitor and an old Microsoft wireless keyboard and mouse. The only accessories I needed were the mouse and touchpad.
One nice thing about the Mac Minis is that AppleCare lasts for three years so even my old 2011 mini is still under AppleCare.
When the late 2012 Mac Minis came out I bought a couple of them (i7 processors and a 1TB hard drive. Then the day the late 2014 Mac Mini was announced I ordered of them also.
I think my late 2011 mini with that i7 processor is still faster than the current base model mini.
We are all different and what is important or acceptable to me may be totally different from how someone else sees it but in my opinion the minis give me the most bang for my Apple buck.
1. A Mac that I can add more memory or upgrade the storage to meet my needs as time goes by. A Mac that I can use as a server in a small business. A Mac that I don't have to keep paying the cost of a new screen every time I want a faster computer (aka iMac).
2. Same as any other Mac mini of the same performance level.
3. I should not have to sacrifice. Is it too much to ask for the latest desktop (not ultra low power mobile chips) processors and upgraded Thunderbolt 2? I don't want to sacrifice performance. I don't know that ANYONE has ever complained the Mini uses too much electricity so why the low power CPU's?
No question there are plenty of consumers with very simple needs who are still a good fit for a mini. But the whole reason people are so annoyed is that with the quad going away, the number of people who can use a mini got a lot smaller overnight.
And unfortunately as the quad goes away, it's not like there are other mac options that are a good alternative. What is really dumb on Apple's part is that it's not like there's some major change they made to the mini that made it much better or cheaper for low end users, they absolutely could have did like they did before and had that wider range of cpu power and price.